On 05.07.2011 11:16, Herbert Duerr wrote:
On 05.07.2011, Rob Weir wrote:
Is the Hg ==> Git conversion easier/cleaner than the conversion to SVN?
Yes. Having the CWSs in SVN would only increase the size of the
repository considerably without providing benefits after they get
merged. Speaking of merges in SVN we regularly had the problem that a
file was renamed in one CWS and changed in another CWS and the result
was that the change got lost. HG or GIT handle this scenario much more
gracefully, so there was less risk to do big merges.
indeed, which led to effectively forbidding moving files in SVN...
i hope SVN has learned to signal a merge conflict for this nowadays?
I notice that Apache Infrastructure does support *read-only* Git
repositories:
http://git.apache.org/
Would it be any simpler to move the enter Oracle-hosted project,
including all CWS's to a read-only Git, and then create a dump of just
the integrated trunk (with history) for the project's SVN repository?
Then, we'll have ongoing access to the CWS's in Git until such point
as they are ready to be integrated. In other words, treat the Git
version as a read-only archive.
If the goal is to just merge the outstanding CWSs into trunk I'd suggest
to stay with hg, merge all good CWSs into trunk and start the apache-ooo
SVN repository from that trunk.
If the goal is to preserve the trunk and CWSs of the old-OOo project
then the idea to provide it as a read-only git repository is great,
especially since it would work in the current infrastructure. With
http://repo.or.cz/w/fast-export.git the conversion could be easy.
Unfortunately that tool hasn't been extended to handle hg-bookmarks yet
but it handles hg-branches just fine. So if someone more experienced
with HG can rewrite the latest fetch-all-cws script posted here from
hg-bookmarks to its hg-branches equivalent we would be only one step
away from such a "status-quo" repository. I guess the resulting bare
repo would only consume about 1.5GB for everything.
this is a very interesting idea, so i've tried to figure out how to do
this...
found this article most helpful:
http://stevelosh.com/blog/2009/08/a-guide-to-branching-in-mercurial/
unfortunately, (in contrast to HG bookmarks) it doesn't seem to be
possible to retroactively move HG commits onto a HG named branch.
for a HG named branch the branch is part of the commit metadata, so this
would need modifying the existing commits, and i've not found a tool
that can do this (the HG convert extension allows for renaming branches,
but in this case we'd need to move _some_ commits from the default
branch to a CWS branch, and i can't see how that could be done).
there is another tool, a HG extension called hg-git, which can convert
HG bookmarks to git branches.
http://hg-git.github.com/
so my current plan is this:
1. convert OOO340 repo to git via hg-fast-export.sh
2. pull all CWSes into OOO340 repo and create bookmarks
3. use hg-git to push all of them into the converted git repo
it would also be possible to use hg-git to convert the whole HG repo
with bookmarks in one step; don't know which is the better way, and the
hg-git homepage mentions the word "slow" somewhere, while we have
"hg-fast-export.sh", so i'll try this route first :)
For a more complete history we could then also add the >1000 CWSs from
the svn period. I found that having the individual instead of the big
merge-hunks was invaluable for understanding the status of some code.
Even with these many CWSs the result will probably stay under 2.0GB.
hmm... could be useful :)
--
"The 'sound' banker, alas! is not one who sees danger and avoids it,
but one who, when he is ruined, is ruined in a conventional and
orthodox way along with his fellows so that no one can really
blame him." -- John Maynard Keynes
